MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986576868 · doi:10.1063/1.3601418

Fluctuations, Saturation, and Diffractive Excitation in High Energy Collisions

2011· article· en· W1986576868 on OpenAlexaff
Christoffer Flensburg, M. Capua, Roberto Fiore, Igor Ivanov, Alessandro Papa, Jacques Soffer, E. ̃Tassi

Bibliographic record

VenueAIP conference proceedings · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicHigh-Energy Particle Collisions Research
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Particle Physics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPomeronPhysicsFormalism (music)ExcitationDipoleHigh energySaturation (graph theory)Quantum electrodynamicsParticle physicsHadronQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diffractive excitation is usually described by the Good--Walker formalism for low masses, and by the triple-Regge formalism for high masses. In the Good-Walker formalism the cross section is determined by the fluctuations in the interaction. By taking the fluctuations in the BFKL ladder into account, it is possible to describe both low and high mass excitation in the Good-Walker formalism. In high energy pp collisions the fluctuations are strongly suppressed by saturation, which implies that pomeron exchange does not factorise between DIS and pp collisions. The Dipole Cascade Model reproduces the expected triple-Regge form for the bare pomeron, and the triple-pomeron coupling is estimated.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.770
Threshold uncertainty score0.483

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIP conference proceedingsSame topicHigh-Energy Particle Collisions ResearchFrench-language works237,207